Gerald Sipe - State Water Resources Control Board

Mimi Khin Hall, MPH, CHES, Director
Plumas County Public Health Agency
Environmental Health-Quincy
Environmental Health - Chester
270 County Hosp. Rd. Ste. 127 Post Office Box 1194
Quincy, CA 95971 Chester, CA 96020
(530) 283-6355 (530) 283-6241 FAX (530) 258-2536 (530)258-2844 FAX
November 14, 2011
OWTS Policy
State Water Resources Control Board
P.O. Box 2231
Sacramento, CA 95812
RE: Technical Issues Concerning Policy for Siting, Design, Operation and Maintenance of
Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems (OWTS)
Dear Mr. Polhemus,
As you probably know, the Plumas County Board of Supervisors submitted a November 8, 2011
letter urging various changes to the draft OWTS policy. In addition to the broad policy issues
raised in that letter, this letter addresses various technical issues that also need clarification or
revision.
Horizontal Setbacks
The horizontal setbacks of Tiers 1, 2 and 3 regarding public water system sources are too
prescriptive or arbitrary. In particular Tier 1 Sections 7.5.6-10, Tier 2 Sections 9.4.10.1-5 and
Tier 3 Sections 10.4.10.1-5 are more restrictive than the revised Title 22 Waterworks Standards
and the “CA Well Standards 74-90” which are already in place to protect public water systems
utilizing wells or surface water. These sections should be modified to reference and conform to
existing regulations.
Related to this issue are the requirements in Tier 2 Section 9.5.1-4. By deferring OWTS
horizontal setback approval until there is concurrence by the public water system owner and
CDPH Drinking Water Program only adds costs and delays to a process that will not increase the
protection of public health.
Vertical Setbacks
The minimum depths to groundwater listed in Tier 1 Section 8.1.6 Table 1 are excessive at 20
feet for percolation rates of 1-5 mpi and 8 feet at 5-29 mpi. These distances can not be measured
with a standard soil profile done by a backhoe and would further burden the homeowner with the
higher expense of a soil boring.

Density Limits
The density requirement of Tier 1 Section 7.8 places an arbitrary restriction on new subdivisions
and limits the use of OWTS to a minimum parcel size of 2.5 acres. Any minimum parcel size
should be determined case-by-case, be project specific and based on site evaluation not an
arbitrary regulatory number.
Recreational Vehicle Dump Stations
The prohibition of OWTS dedicated to receiving wastes from recreational vehicle (RV) holding
tanks in Tier 2 Section 9.4.8 will negatively impact Plumas County. The existing RV dump
stations in Plumas County are few in number and located in areas where other disposal options
are not available. This restriction could eliminate dump stations and increase the probability of
illegal dumping, adversely affecting both public health and the environment. This need not be a
statewide prohibition; it should be negotiable in a Tier 2 program approved by the Regional
Board.
Tier 3 Requirements for Existing OWTS
Tier 3 Sections 10.2-10.2.4 for existing systems should be rewritten to put the burden of proof
for degradation on the Regional Boards. Even if Regional Board fails to adopt a TMDL and a
contribution from OWTS is never established, the owner of an existing OWTS must comply with
advanced treatment requirements within 7 years. Then, once the TMDL is completed and it does
not allocate any load to OWTS, and the advanced treatment may no longer be necessary. Those
installing advanced treatment in the interim will have spent a lot of money unnecessarily and
without water quality benefit. Any requirements for OWTS upgrades of existing systems before
a TMDL has been established should be eliminated.
Optional inspection reports for existing systems are detailed in Tier 3 Section 10.3-10.3.2.
Section 10.3.2 requires an OWTS owner to submit any inspection reports within 30 days of
completion. An owner should not be required to submit a report, which he is paying for, to the
Board unless he so chooses. This requirement is unenforceable and should be deleted. However,
a reasonable time frame for action by the Regional Board should be added for those reports that
are submitted as well as suspension of OWTS upgrade requirements during this period of Board
review.
Tier 3 Requirements for New OWTS
Tier 3 Section 10.6 requirements are for new OWTS within 600 feet of a 303(d) water body
without a TMDL. The requirement for advanced treatment for nitrates and pathogens at this
distance appears to be excessive and arbitrary rather than based on such parameters as OWTS
density, soil type and percolation test results. Also, without an adopted TMDL there is no
evidence that the OWTS are contributing to the problem. Costly advanced treatment systems,
that may be unnecessary, should not be required. This requirement for new systems should be
eliminated until a TMDL is adopted.

Clarifying Language
Several sections in the policy use wording that triggers regulatory action yet are undefined,
unclear in its meaning, or are contradictory. The following sections need clarification, revision
or omission:
Section 3.3—requires the “location” be provided for OWTS complaints and permits in
the annual report. It does not seem necessary to track and report local OWTS activities to
this level of detail.
Tier 0 Section 6.1.2—refers to “high-strength wastewater from commercial food service
buildings that does not exceed 900 mg/L BOD and has a properly sized and functioning
grease interceptor (a.k.a. grease trap).” This restriction should be removed. If an
existing system is operating properly, then it should be allowed to continue operation
until it meets the conditions of Tier 4.
Tier 0 Section 6.1.4—Clarification is needed that OWTS inundated by a flood event
would not be automatically taken out of Tier 0 if the OWTS functions properly after the
waters recede.
Tier 1 Section 8.1.4—states that leach fields installed above native soil may be approved
under Tier 2 but this is contradicted in Tier 2 Section 9.4.3 which states that any effluent
disposal on or above the ground surface is not allowed. This section must be modified to
permit above-ground (mound) systems in Tier 2.
Tier 2 Section 9.1.2—uses the term “high quality waters”. The term is not defined or
referenced to other existing regulations and should be removed.
Tier 2 Section 9.1.3—refers to “dispersal system installation that is closer to the ground
surface than is standard”. The intent of this section is not clear.
Tier 2 Section 9.1.9—uses the term “watershed”. This term needs to be defined and
clarified as to the intent of what the term encompasses.
Tier 2 Section 9.4.10.4 and 9.5—uses the term “within the catchment of the drainage”.
This term needs to be defined and clarified as to the intent of what the term encompasses.
Tier 3 Prologue and Tier 3 Section 10.0—contains conflicting statements regarding
existing OWTS near an impaired water body. The prologue states that existing systems
must meet the Tier 3 requirements and Section 10.0 says “local agencies are not required
to notice or enforce the requirements of Tier 3 for existing OWTS.” These conflicting
statements need clarification.
Tier 3 Section 10.4.3—prohibits any above ground effluent disposal. This section should
be modified to permit above-ground mound systems in Tier 3.
Thank you for your continuing work to make this policy workable for local implementing
agencies. I look forward to working with you during the next revision cycle.
Sincerely,
Gerald Sipe
Plumas County Environmental Health